Futures Forum: Greenfield vs Brownfield: part two
here is a closer look at a comment posted on another Telegraph piece today:
Mafia-style behaviour in the planning system is traumatising villages, suggests Sir Simon Jenkins
Chairman of National Trust says planning decisions have led to eyesore developments that could only have happened in Sicily
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent 28 Mar 2014
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent 28 Mar 2014
...
And while greenfield sites may be cheaper for developers they're usually more expensive for the public purse, which has to fund the new infrastructure to service them.
Mafia-style behaviour in the planning system is traumatising villages, suggests Sir Simon Jenkins - Telegraph
Yes, developing on brownfield sites is more expensive:
Environment Agency - Brownfield Land Redevelopment: Position Statement
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Brownfield and Greenfield sites
Boles: brownfield option sometimes costs too much | Planning Resource
HowStuffWorks "Pros and Cons to Developing a Brownfield"
Guide to Brownfield Redevelopment
In which case, the likes of the Economist say it's better to build on greenfield sites - because you're more likely to get nightingales in the middle of a city...
The brownfield delusion
May 2nd 2013, 14:41 by D.K
Update: some good further reading on why a brownfield first policy is a bad idea from Paul Cheshire, of the London School of Economics. He points out that much brownfield land is rich with wildlife, whereas much "greenfield" intensive farmland is pretty devoid of life. If you want to protect nightingales and water voles, it might be better to allow building on more greenfield land.
Planning and housing: The brownfield delusion | The Economist
On the other hand, whilst urban development already enjoys transport and other services, new housing in the countryside needs new infrastructure - paid for out of taxation:
happyurbanist: Going Brown-field: Alternative Strategies to Greenfield development
Greenfield and brownfield sites
The brownfield revolution | Risktec
It's a problem everywhere when it comes to expansion on the ground - that the 'infrastructure' just can't keep up - as in the sprawl of Melbourne and California:
Tomorrow's Suburbs
THE END OF SUBURBIA
THE COSTS OF URBAN SPRAWL – INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION
And in terms of 'sustainability' it makes very little sense to 'invest' in expensive 'infrastructure' when the whole point about developing for sustainability is >>> local production and local consumption...
Here are a couple of thought-provoking insights:
But what about the roads?
By socializing the costs of the transportation of goods amongst all people, rather than amongst those who produce and consume the goods, there is far less of an incentive for consumers to consume locally. As a result, this series of policies artificially suppresses local industry and benefits distant producers. This is to some degree responsible for the unnatural centralization of major market players like Walmart, who desperately needs the state to externalize the large costs of its goods’ transport.
Center for a Stateless Society » But what about the roads?
The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Center for a Stateless Society » Infrastructure is Not “Progressive”
.
.
.
Yes, developing on brownfield sites is more expensive:
Environment Agency - Brownfield Land Redevelopment: Position Statement
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Brownfield and Greenfield sites
Boles: brownfield option sometimes costs too much | Planning Resource
HowStuffWorks "Pros and Cons to Developing a Brownfield"
Guide to Brownfield Redevelopment
In which case, the likes of the Economist say it's better to build on greenfield sites - because you're more likely to get nightingales in the middle of a city...
The brownfield delusion
May 2nd 2013, 14:41 by D.K
Update: some good further reading on why a brownfield first policy is a bad idea from Paul Cheshire, of the London School of Economics. He points out that much brownfield land is rich with wildlife, whereas much "greenfield" intensive farmland is pretty devoid of life. If you want to protect nightingales and water voles, it might be better to allow building on more greenfield land.
Planning and housing: The brownfield delusion | The Economist
On the other hand, whilst urban development already enjoys transport and other services, new housing in the countryside needs new infrastructure - paid for out of taxation:
happyurbanist: Going Brown-field: Alternative Strategies to Greenfield development
Greenfield and brownfield sites
The brownfield revolution | Risktec
It's a problem everywhere when it comes to expansion on the ground - that the 'infrastructure' just can't keep up - as in the sprawl of Melbourne and California:
Tomorrow's Suburbs
THE END OF SUBURBIA
THE COSTS OF URBAN SPRAWL – INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION
And in terms of 'sustainability' it makes very little sense to 'invest' in expensive 'infrastructure' when the whole point about developing for sustainability is >>> local production and local consumption...
Here are a couple of thought-provoking insights:
But what about the roads?
By socializing the costs of the transportation of goods amongst all people, rather than amongst those who produce and consume the goods, there is far less of an incentive for consumers to consume locally. As a result, this series of policies artificially suppresses local industry and benefits distant producers. This is to some degree responsible for the unnatural centralization of major market players like Walmart, who desperately needs the state to externalize the large costs of its goods’ transport.
Center for a Stateless Society » But what about the roads?
The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Center for a Stateless Society » Infrastructure is Not “Progressive”
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment